Apart from not having the first delegate commitment, exactly what have “victories” in Iowa, Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota acknowledged?
First, that participants in caucuses are underwhelmed to voice their solidarity with their higher ground constituents. This “group think” forum is void, by necessity, of critical thought. This is not to say that the caucus forum is the antithesis of the primary process. It is always much easier when espousing your “heartfelt commitment” to an issue to take the high road when exposed to the crowd in a non-binding farcical display. These same “voters” will doubtlessly “rethink” that stance when confronted with the isolation of a voting booth. It’s easy to sound righteous in a public forum. Even easier when that cry is meaningless. It’s an entirely different matter when the fate of one’s country hangs in the balance. (a)
Secondly, that voters turn out when a perceived mandate is on the table. Given the fact that our very founding principles and constitution are under a vehement, persistent, overt and covert onslaught one would think that voter turnout would be in record numbers. Well we are seeing record numbers but for low turn out. It is the nature of these non-binding caucuses. There in no mandate for voter participation. Were there overwhelming support for these forums America would benefit. There is not.(b)
Thirdly, that voters identifying themselves with the GOP are disproportionately dissatisfied with the former Governor of Massachusetts, the GOPe anointed one. These same voters have taken the bait of the legacy media, the GOPe and the Romney campaign. They are all too easily swayed.
So what have these non-binding “elections” shown us? Look no further than answering what good the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has done America, or what constructive legislation has come form the 112th Senate. Zero, nada, zilch. The exact numerical probability as the prospects for the subject candidates nomination.